Moving Towards an 
Adaptation Committee

ECO supports the call from many developing country Parties for a new adaptation institution. Adaptation is still highly fragmented under the UNFCCC.  While climate impacts are already being widely felt, there are large gaps in capacity and understanding how to adapt now and in the future at all levels, from community to national.
Of the three options in para 7 of Chapter II in the LCA text, ECO favours the establishment of an Adaptation Committee.  The committee would be a coordinating body to consolidate the different adaptation fragments under the UNFCCC, including elaborating recommendations to the COP as they emerge.
The committee would be composed of experts with practical or technical expertise on planning and implementing adaptation or other relevant background.  The members would be nominated by Parties representing UN constituencies, with a developing country majority.
It is desirable to include non-government experts (with the right to speak in meetings) from organisations such as UN bodies, the Red Cross, NGOs and civil society more broadly.  This is a bit unusual, but it makes sense as much of the expertise on adaptation currently resides outside government.
ECO also suggests limiting the role of this body so that it has no direct role in the funding of adaptation: that responsibility should be handled through new institutions set up under the proposed Green Fund.
A key function of the Adaptation Committee would be to provide guidance and support on issues that emerge through the learning-by-doing process that adaptation to climate change necessarily is.   The committee should identify themes needing further analysis and advise on best implementation practice, as well as link to any future equivalent of the Nairobi Work Programme.
Another important function would be to provide an interface between the UNFCCC and the work of regional centres (whether existing bodies or new institutions), to ensure that sufficient information and support on adaptation is available to Parties.
Finally, the Adaptation Committee would report to the COP yearly on its activities and its findings and make recommendations.
ECO is well aware that Annex I Parties generally do not favour new institutions.  They are worried about the costs and possible duplication of roles with existing bodies, as well as the time needed to get a new body up and running. So why can these functions not be performed by existing bodies? Here are a few reasons:
• The LDC Expert Group already has a full work programme on supporting implementation of National Adaptation Programmes of Action (NAPAs).
• The Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) is focusing on tech transfer, of which adaptation technologies are only a minor element at the current time.
• The Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) on national communications can provide lessons learnt for adaptation strategies, but this is only a small aspect of adaptation.
• The Nairobi Work Programme does not have an expert group.  While NWP has provided much information, workshops and reports, it has had no mandate to provide recommendations for implementation, and it is limited to scientific and technical support.
Taken together, therefore, the existing expert groups and the Nairobi Work Programme still do not fulfill the necessarily broad scope of an integrated adaptation effort, and changing their mandates would be more difficult than establishing a new and purpose-built body.
ECO considers that a favorable decision on forming the Adaptation Committee will be one element of an ambitious Adaptation Framework for Implementation to be agreed in Cancun. Of course, such a committee would not be expected to overcome all adaptation challenges. But putting it in operation would help to build much-needed trust, showing that Annex I countries really will support adaptation, especially in vulnerable countries.